Below are several e-mails from the same
person commenting on articles listed at Bible
Versions Controversy, along with
my replies. In each exchange, the e-mailers comments are in
black and enclosed in "greater
than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.

Exchange
#1

>I have enjoyed reading the various articles concerning
Bible versions on your web site. You seem to favor the NKJV. Last
week, before reading your articles, I purchased two NKJVs of the
Bible after becoming aware of the many variants of the modern
versions.

After about 5 days of reading the NKJV, I have found three
places where the KJV was a better translation. One of your
articles mention that you found several instances were the KJV
translation was better than the NKJV. Can please provide those
references?<

Thank you for your letter. You are probably right that there would
be verses where the KJV's rendering is to be preferred to the
NKJV. But I'm sure you'll eventually find other places where the
NKJV is to be preferred. This is why on my Web site I
consistently recommend that people compare more than one version
of the Bible.

So it is not an "either/ or"
situation but "both/ and." Use both, compare them as
you do our studies and I think you will find it to be profitable.
At least it is for me.

Now, I do consider the KJV, NKJV, Modern
King James Version [MKJV], and The Literal Translation
of the Bible [LITV] to be the best versions available. And I
consistently compare each in my own studies.

Exchange
#2

>Gary, Thanks for your reply. As I mentioned in my last
letter, I am pretty much of a novice when it comes the
differences in versions. For over twenty years, I have faithfully
studied, taught, and preached from my KJV and used it as a
standard to compare all other translations. To me this
translation was the Word of God. Now that I have exposed myself
to other versions, I find myself with the need to check every
verse in the KJV (when reading) against another translations in
the hope the other version may shed some additional light or
correct a translation error.

In other words, I have lost my trust in the KJV's
infallibility. However, I dare not communicate my recent
discoveries about the KJV's errors least I stir up confusion or
destroy someone's faith. (When I discussed with my wife some of
the errors in the KJV she stated tearfully, "You mean to
tell me that my bible (the Word) is wrong?" There are
multitudes like my wife that "can't handle the truth".
Jesus said the truth shall make us free. But does the truth about
translations make us free?<

Your comments here remind me of the
time, years ago, when my grandpa told me that he read the Bible
"in the original." At first I was impressed. I thought
that he knew Hebrew and Greek. But as we talked further it became
apparent that by "the original" he meant the KJV!

My attempts to explain to him that the
KJV was NOT "the original" but a TRANSLATION of the
original Hebrew and Greek were fruitless. So he went to his grave
believing that Bible was originally written in KJV English (God
bless his soul; he died October 2, 1997).

In any case, my point is, he was taught
wrong from the start. And apparently, so were you and your wife.
You see, from long before I became a Christian I learned that the
Bible was originally written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).

Moreover, I also learned that the
Christian claim was that the original manuscripts of the Greek
and Hebrew were inspired, not any translation thereof. In
addition, I learned that the textual evidence for the integrity
of the original texts was far greater than any other ancient
manuscript.

So for me, learning that any translation
of the Bible is not "infallible" in no way would lessen
my faith in the Bible as the Word of God. Thus, what I see here
is a need for people to be taught the correct attitude toward the
doctrine of inspiration from the start.

>You mentioned that you constantly compare translations as
you study, which tells me you can't fully trust translators--a
very sad predicament. Unfortunately, I am also in your
situation.<

It is not a matter of not trusting the
translators. To clarify, you are correct that I do not trust the
majority of modern-day translations. But this is not because I do
not "trust" the translators in terms of their ability
to translate Hebrew and Greek. The knowledge of the original
language of the translators of the NIV, for instance, would far
exceed mine (two years of Greek, one year of Hebrew at Denver
Seminary, plus much studying on my own).

However, the reason I do not trust the
NIV and similar versions is because I disagree with the
translators PHILOSOPHY of translation. The translators of
such version ascribe to a "dynamic equivalence"
philosophy whereas I believe in "formal (or complete)
equivalence." I discuss the differences between these
philosophies at length in articles on my Web site.

I also disagree with their use of the
"Critical Text" rather than the Textus Receptus/
Majority Text. Again, I detail my reason for this disagreement on
my site.

Now, as regards the versions I recommend
on my site (the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV), I recommend comparing
more than one of these versions not because I dont trust
the translations per se. I believe that each of these are
generally reliable. However, none is "perfect."
Furthermore, sometimes it is possible to translate the original
in more than one way.

In more practical terms, I generally
read from the NKJV. But as I do I generally compare first its
reading with the LITV, and then maybe the KJV and MKJV. If these
versions are all basically the same, then I will generally assume
that the rendering is "correct." And more often than
not, this is the case.

For instance, in your first letter you
mentioned that you "found three places where the KJV was a
better translation." But this was "After about 5 days
of reading the NKJV." Now, I wonder how many verses you read
in those five days. Assuming you're a rather avid Bible reader,
it was probably in the hundreds. If this is the case, then the
percentage of verses with significant differences would not be
that great.

If, however, there is a significant
difference in a verse between the above versions, then I know I
need to do some further research. This would involve looking at
the verse in the Hebrew or Greek texts. I might then look at
other study aids such as lexicons, concordances, etc. Bible
software programs are particularly helpful in doing such
research.

For instance, in a recent discussion on
eternal security, I was quoting John 10:27-29 in support of the
doctrine. The phrase I was emphasizing was Jesus promise
about "his sheep" that "they shall never
perish" (v.28). This is how it is worded in the KJV, NKJV,
and LITV.

However, in the MKJV the phrase reads,
"they shall never ever perish." That extra word
"never" caught my eye. I thought I might know why was
there; but I checked the Greek text to be sure. And sure enough
there was a "double negative" in the Greek (ou me).

Unlike English in which a double
negative cancels each other out, in Greek this grammatical
construction is an emphatic way of expressing an impossibility.
So by comparing versions I found out that Jesus was declaring the
"eternal security" of the believer in an even more
emphatic way than I originally thought.

Further research showed that only the
MKJV renders the double negative. The other versions seem to
ignore it. Other verses where this construction is used by Jesus
are Matt 24:35; John 4:14; 6:35; 8:51,52.

Now, I should mention that you do not
need to be a Hebrew or Greek "scholar" or even know
these languages to do some of the above kind of research. There
are many study aids now available that give even the non-Hebrew
or non-Greek reader some access to the original languages.

>If we accept the KJV as inspired, then that makes our
spiritual lives easier but not necessarily correct.<

Agreed. "Easier" is not better
- "correct" is. Again, people need to be taught from
the start that it is the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
that are inspired, not any translation.

>If we accept the Received Text as inspired, then what does
that say about the Majority Text and its differences to the
Received Text?<

There are some differences between the
Textus Receptus [TR] and the Majority Text [MT], but they are
generally minor, few and far apart. If you check the textual
footnotes in your NKJV (which is based on the TR) you will see
that only rarely an alternative "M" reading is given
(the "M" being the NKJVs abbreviation for the
Majority Text).

The only exception to this would be in
the Revelation. In that book you will see quite a few
"M" alternative readings. You will also see a lot of
"NU" alternative readings ("NU" being the
NKJVs abbreviation for "Nestle/Aland - United Bible
Societies, the two groups that publish the "Critical
Text" [CT]).

There are more textual variants in the
Revelation than any other book of the NT. Why this is so Im
not sure; but it may have something to do with the frequent use
heretics made of the book. In any case, the variants generally
are not that significant.

There are, however, quite a few
significant variants between the TR/ MT and the CT. but even
then, the overall integrity of the NT is not put in question as I
detail in articles on my site.

>And if the Received Text is inspired, we need a good
translation but which one is better--NKJV, MKJV, LITV, or KJ21?
Which version do we commit to memory? Which version should we
preach and teach to the world? Won't they be confused as to which
is the real Word of God? Which version do we use as a standard
for our local church?<

I would recommend that each person needs
to pick one version as their primary Bible. This version should
then be used for preaching, teaching, and memorization. At least
one of the other versions should then be used for comparison
purposes, like I outlined above.

In a local church or Bible study, yes,
it would be helpful if everyone were to use the same version. And
I have found that generally, most people in a church will begin
to use the version that the preacher or teacher uses.

But even if people in the congregation
are using a different version from the preacher or teacher, there
would not be much "confusion" as long as everyone is
using a version based on the TR/ MT. But if someone is using a
version based on the CT text there just might be some confusion.
See, for an example, my short article Differences
Between Bible Versions.

Confusion can be further avoided, again,
if people are correctly taught from the start that even the TR/
MT versions are just translations of the originally inspired
texts. People also need to be taught that each of the first three
versions you mention, along with the KJV, are generally reliable
(I am not familiar with the KJ21, though I have heard of it, so I
cannot say how accurate it is).

>I think you will agree that We (the church) are at a
spiritual conundrum and at the same time the devil is rejoicing
as we fight over which translation is best.<

I think the devil is rejoicing over the
wide-spread use of less reliable version like the NIV. I also
think you are correct that the devil rejoices when "KJV
only" people attack people like myself who use the NKJV. Or
when users of the MKJV or LITV attack users of the KJV or NKJV.

Since each of these are reliable
translations, I find the fighting very disheartening. See my
article "Judge Not " for more on my comments in this regard.

>Quoting from the preface of the NKJV, "Today,
scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual
criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor
the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical
prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King
James Version." I don't know if "flux" is a strong
enough term. The science of textual criticism is in more of state
of chaos!!<

Not really. What you have are three main
"camps." Those who promote the CT, those, like myself,
who ascribe to the MT text, and then the "KJV Only"
people who will only accept the TR.

Since, as stated above, the difference
between the TR and MT is not that great, there is really not much
reason for fighting here.

The main differences are between the TR/
MT and the CT. The NKJV prefaces statement about "a
state of flux" refers to that fact that more and more
scholars are leaving the CT side and coming over to the TR/ MT
side. So the claims of the CT people that their text is the
"standard" for today is falling apart.

>I realize that the KJV version has some archaic,
anachronistic words and even some words/verses have been
mistranslated or added, but none of the alternatives are a
perfect alternative to the tried and faithful KJV. Other
translations have come and gone and the KJV remains as a true
standard. I am not preaching "KJV Onlyism" but we as
whole (the church) need a standard--the KJV is it!

Gary, you are in a unique position to take a position. Instead
of telling your readers to consistently compare versions, tell
them to use the KJV as their primary version and the rest (NKJV,
MKJV, KJ21, LITV) as references as the Holy Spirit directs. I
would be interested in your comments.

Gregg<

When my mom was in high school her
parents bought her a KJV Bible. She tried reading it, then
stopped. She tried again, and then stopped again. She tried some
more, but finally got "disgusted" (her word) and gave
up on the Bible altogether. The problem was, she says, it simply
was too difficult to understand, especially in the OT.

Her mom then bought her a Good News
Bible (GNB, also know as Todays English Version).
She started reading it and kept reading it. It seems she could
actually understand it.

She continued to read the GNB until my
little book Differences Between Bible Versions was
published in 1994. As a result of reading my book she switched to
the NKJV and has been reading it ever since. She finds it plenty
easy to understand.

I relate this story as I am sure that my
mom is not the only one who has had a similar experience with the
KJV.

I just pulled a pamphlet out of my files
that I picked up a few years ago titled "How to Choose the
Right Bible" (Spring Arbor Distributors, 1990). On pages 6-7
is a chart comparing nine versions of the Bible. One of the areas
of comparison is "Reading Level."

Following is how the versions mentioned
above are rated, from lowest to highest grade:

GNB: 7th grade
NIV: 7th grade
NKJV: 8th grade
KJV: 12th grade

The MKJV and LITV are not on the
pamphlet. But I would guess that they would be somewhere
in-between the NKJV and KJV. Maybe the MKJV at 9th grade and the
LITV at 11th grade.

Now, I remember reading a while back
that the average person in the USA reads at a 7th grade reading
level. I know this sounds like a sad state of affairs; but it is
nevertheless true. It is for this reason that newspapers and
other popular publications are generally written at a 7th grade
level.

More to the point, my mom would probably
be considered an average reader. So it should be apparent why she
got "disgusted" with the KJV but kept with the GNB.

The above information also explains the
popularity of the NIV. It also is written at the level where most
people read at. Meanwhile, the KJV is written at a level of five
"grades" above my moms and the average
persons reading level. So it should also be apparent why
the NIV now outsells the KJV.

But notice that the NKJV is rated at an
"8th grade" level. So it is only slightly more
difficult than the GNB or NIV. Hence why my mom has had no
difficulties with it.

Now, I think we would both agree that
the GNB and the NIV are not very reliable, to say the least. But
why do I recommend the NKJV rather than the KJV? Simple, the KJV
is simply too difficult for the average reader. I myself find it
very awkward to read. So why would I recommend it to others?

This question is especially pertinent as
there are alternatives: the NKJV, MKJV and LITV. I have listed
these in the increasing order of difficulty to read, but also in
what I would consider to be the increasing order of accuracy.

I have considered switching to the
either the MKJV or LITV as the "default" version my
ministry due to their somewhat greater accuracy. But, as
indicated above, they would probably be about two and four
grades, respectively, above the average reading level of people.

So I think I will stick with the NKJV as
my primary Bible for my ministry and personal studies. But the
LITV will be my secondary Bible, and then the MKJV and KJV.

Now, please do not misunderstand me
here. If someone such as yourself is already using the KJV and
finds it easy enough to read, I would not discourage that person
from continuing to use it. But I cannot see recommending it,
especially for a new Bible reader.

It would be nice if every Christian were
to use the same Bible version. But, unfortunately, this is simply
unrealistic in todays climate. Even more unfortunate, if a
"standard" were to emerge, given todays sale
levels, the NIV would probably be it.

So I would be thankful if the sale
levels of the NIV and similar versions were to drop off, and the
KJV, NKJV, MKJV, and/ or LITV would see increased sales and, more
importantly, use.